I think there is only one jurisdiction with the power and will to impose such a thing - and (a) their track record on doing so successfully is not good and (b ) we're in the process of leaving it.

Would that be the EU?The same EU whose highest legal authority (The European Court of Human Rights) recently ruled that "free speech" does not extend to calling Mohammed a paedophile, even though he married a 6 year old and consummated that union when his child bride was 9?Would that be the same EU that is working with tech giants to crack down on so called "hate speech" - even when no such thing has ever been defined in law?Would that be the same EU that is imposing massive restrictions on internet content creators with article 13?

Interests:fishing,fossils,researching intrepid reels and general being naughty

Posted 07 December 2018 - 08:22 AM

The tradition is when you introduce a law that doesnt exist its used! And its used a lot
Look at how many arrests have been made under the public order act and the thousands of new offences under the terroism laws!
Common law gives enough powers to arrest for any offence but new ones pop up every day and the police will use them even if they dont apply ,try having a few cans of beans in your cupboard and look suspicious or heckle the labour party and suddenly your a terrorist
This old guy i believe was the first to be arrested under labour raft of terror laws ,like most he was not onehttps://m.youtube.co...h?v=qdojzc0J8ts
Laws are made to subjugate the weak and poor whilst the rich and powerful ignore them ,the old guy was abused whilst harming no-one blair and his cronies lived off the fat of the land telling lies that harmed millions
The amusing thing is now with him being jewish and the raft of new anti everything laws half the thugs would be arrested for racism and the others for ageism lol

Edited by chesters1, 07 December 2018 - 08:38 AM.

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

Mathew 4:19

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Would that be the EU?
The same EU whose highest legal authority (The European Court of Human Rights) recently ruled that "free speech" does not extend to calling Mohammed a paedophile, even though he married a 6 year old and consummated that union when his child bride was 9?
Would that be the same EU that is working with tech giants to crack down on so called "hate speech" - even when no such thing has ever been defined in law?
Would that be the same EU that is imposing massive restrictions on internet content creators with article 13?

You'll forgive me if I have little faith there.

Yep, the same EU that enforces the right to be forgotten, that routinely sticks the boot into US tech companies and is currently busy over-regulating the enforcement of copyright on the internet in a manner which is likely to cause considerable difficulty. They have a track record of having both the power and the will to poke their nose into online behaviour and to attack (American) tech companies at every opportunity.

Most nation states lack the power to do what you suggest.

The US lacks the will.

The EU is the only body I can think of which is both willing and able to do what you suggest.

(By the way, the ECHR which made the decision on Austria's policy on defaming Mohammed is not the highest legal authority of the EU, it's not even part of the EU)

Interests:fishing,fossils,researching intrepid reels and general being naughty

Posted 08 December 2018 - 12:32 PM

If you have done wrong why should the EU force the WWW to expunge that wrong ?

Pedophile mr EU tell the www to remove all traces of my 10 cases of kiddy fiddling its harming my chances of getting more ,my rights are being harmed you know!
I realise a great deal isnt true and harmful but its being introduced so those in power can falsify history ,creeping censorship which will come to the point everything will need to ok of the mandarins to be put out on the web
What next blair and bush didnt start the second iraq wars using lies aided and abetted by the media and military? ,we should have been pointed to the 6 day war to see both america and britain having no qualms falsifying "evidence" to further agendas

How would this bill of rights be interpreted ,unlawfull if if doing X is mentioned as an offence ? Or doing X is lawful only if its mentioned as not an offence?
Common law is fine but getting statute law involved will most probably make everything you do unlawful unless you get written permission first from ? Who??
99%+ have no inkling what laws about anything are anyway (lawyers have books that occasionly tell them) and not knowing no excuse in law so your buggered anyway lol

Edited by chesters1, 08 December 2018 - 12:59 PM.

Believe NOTHING anyones says or writes unless you witness it yourself and even then your eyes can deceive you

There is only one opinion i listen to ,its mine and its ALWAYS right even when its wrong

Its far easier to curse the darkness than light one candle

Mathew 4:19

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." Thomas Jefferson

Just curious? What makes anyone think they have a "right" rather than a "privilege" to digital matter. It seems to me any "right" would be a universal privilege. Or, as Chesters1 says, common law. That is to say, I cannot understand how it would be OK for the collective "you" and not OK for the collective "they" i.e. social media, banks, government, to have the same. I agree with the principle Chesters1 is implying. Common law vs Statute law. Right now common law prevails, if you are harmed you have the right of recourse. You are responsible for your own welfare. Statute law is for lazy uninformed citizens. We already have way to much stupid. Why compound that precedent?

You all know I am very liberal but even I have limits as to what I must assure you have. And, I'm not sure I want to be responsible for your internet ignorance. I mean, food, shelter opportunities for work, health, social discrimination (and others) - are fundamentals to life. I am responsible.

Please explain who "they" are? Please explain what you want from the "collective ME" as a segregated social group that requires a statute?